How often do we hear it said “It’s only human nature?” And mostly about an \nanti-social piece of behaviour, as if it couldn’t be avoided? Curiously, it is \nnot often said about the best things that people can do. On hearing that someone \nhas risked their life to save another, for some reason we are not inclined to \nsay “Yes, it’s human nature.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mostly, the idea of “human nature ” is a reflection of a divisive society \nthat is incapable of creating a decent life for all its members. This failure is \nthen rationalised as a pessimistic view that all people (mainly other people) \nare inherently selfish, greedy, and lazy. This view has been used as an \nobjection to socialism, in which all the bad examples of human behaviour under \ncapitalism are called upon to say that a society based on equality and voluntary \nco-operation is impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This prejudice is also reinforced by arguments which assert that our \nbehaviour and our relationships result from the way we are biologically or \ngenetically programmed. These focus on competition, leadership, possessiveness, \naggression, social and sexual inequality and an alleged drive to be territorial \nbut, again, all these are behaviour patterns that reflect capitalism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The arrival of capitalism is a relatively recent phenomenon within human \nhistory, ninety per cent of which has been spent living as hunter gatherers, in \nsmall tribes moving from place to place. This ended with the rise of settled \nagriculture about ten thousand years ago and a variety of different forms of \nsocial organisation have followed across different parts of the world. If our \nsocial arrangements were determined by our biology then this diversity of human \nbehaviour, relationships and culture would never have arisen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The real scientific evidence shows humans are able to adapt to cope \nwith the \nchallenges presented by the natural and social environments within which\n they \nhave had to live. Evidence from the now completed human genome project \nsupports \nthe view of the adaptability of human beings. Dr Craig Venter, President\n and \nchief scientific officer of Celera Geonomics (the private firm that \nwants to \npatent genes for profit and thus not someone to be suspected of \nanti-capitalist or pro-socialist leanings) declared in the official \npress release issued by the \njournal Science<\/a> which published his firms results in its 16 \nFebruary issue:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere are many surprises from this first look at our genetic code that have \nimportant implications for humanity. Since the June 26, 2000 announcement our \nunderstanding of the human genome has changed in the most fundamental ways. The \nsmall number of genes \u2013 30,000 instead of 140,000 \u2013 supported the notion that we \nare not hard-wired . We now know that the notion that one gene leads to one \nprotein and perhaps one disease is false. One gene leads to many different \nproducts and those products-proteins- can change dramatically after they are \nproduced. We know that regions of the genome that are not genes may be the key \nto the complexity we see in humans. We now know the environment acting on these \nbiological steps may be key in makin us what we are. Likewise the remarkably \nsmall number of genetic variations that occur in genes again suggest a \nsignificant role for environmental influences in developing each of our \nuniqueness.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n While human beings\u2019 genetic nature leaves much scope for variation in \nbehaviour, there are certain features that we all share and distinguish us from \nother species. These include the ability to walk upright, binocular colour \nvision, hands with opposable thumbs, organs capable of speech, and the ability \nto think conceptually. These physical features have led to the versatility of \nthe human species as embodied in their labour as well as social behaviour such \nas the accumulation of shared experience that can be passed down through the \ngenerations. The development of tools, from the flint-working technique during \nthe paleolithic period to the computers and space vehicles of today is central \nto understanding human history. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It may have been that this toolmaking tradition played a key part in the \ndevelopment of human consciousness. The tools made by early human kind \nobjectified the existence of the tool makers and in contemplating this they \nbecome conscious of their own existence. This reflection of their own lives in \ntheir own creations may have led to a heightened self awareness and an ability \nto think in an expanded timeframe of past, present and future. Language could \nthen develop from basic references to material objects to higher levels of \nabstract thought which expressed a developing, more complex vision of their \nworld. It was possibly then that humanity created ideas and culture, becoming \nless instinctive and more decision-making. Through this dynamic interaction \nbetween human characteristics and the environment which was essentially the \nlabour process, humankind not only altered their conditions of life, they \nchanged themselves. What this required was not an invariable set of behaviour \npatterns programmed by genetic coding but adaptability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But none of this would have been possible without co-operation. Whilst we may not say that co-operation is programmed through our genes, it is certainly predisposed by our physical make-up. The view that co-operation was essential to the survival and development of human society has recently been supported by the work of the anthropologist Andrew Whiten. He argues that egalitarianism, sharing and lack of domination were the most prominent features in hunter-gatherer societies. (For more about the work of Andrew Whiten see Hunting, Gathering and Co-operating<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n By co-operating with others through a division of labour we greatly increase \nwhat can be produced for our mutual benefit. Besides these material benefits, \nco-operation enables us to develop as individuals. Our individuality grows and \nfinds its expression in relation to others and this would be impossible in \nsocial isolation. In this process of individual growth we draw not only on \npersonal relationships, we draw on society in general and even on the lives of \nthose who lived in the past.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Co-operation is sometimes said to be impossible because there is an inherent \nconflict between self-interest and the interests of others. In fact, the reverse \nis true. The interests of the individual are best realised when people are \nworking together. <\/p>\n\n\n\nToolmaking, language and thought<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Predisposed for co-operation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n